Forget combined medals over 01-03. It's going to come down to health. For example: I don't care if Carly Patterson is the reigning AA silver medalist. If she's dealing with a significant injury next year at Olympic qualifyers, there's too many others that are talented enough (I can't believe we can say that about USA's depth) to automatically consider her a shoo-in.

I really think it's going to come down to who is in the best physical shape, injury-free, and who is consistent through the upcoming season. Not past finishes. Too many of the new girls at Worlds proved they can hang tough with the known veterans. It's going to be an awesome US Nationals and Olympic qualifying event!

It's more of a 'talent pool' issue. Obviously if someone is not healthy they shouldn't be on the team, but if everyone *IS* healthy (like 1996) it's going to be quite a competition to see these gifted athletes try to outdo each other.

Belu was unhappy that he lost the gold but was realistic and said: "That's life and we have to accept the situation because we have made some mistakes. We had some unfortunate mistakes and that's why we finished second. I was impressed with the gymnasts of United States, most of all after so many injuries and accidents. That team has major potential."

"I'm cautious to say that we could have finished first. I have to admit that the Americans did really well but we lost important points because of our mistakes."

"In Romania the number of gymnasts is remarkably small so the results are a natural cause. In Dallas alone there are 65 gymnastic clubs and in Romania there are less than 10, so the American selection is based on other human resources."
"I'm sorry that there were some childish mistakes but that's the result of lack of experience. I can't say that I'm completely satisfied about any of them but it's a good start on the road to Athens."

Belu was unhappy that he lost the gold but was realistic and said: "That's life and we have to accept the situation because we have made some mistakes. We had some unfortunate mistakes and that's why we finished second. I was impressed with the gymnasts of United States, most of all after so many injuries and accidents. That team has major potential."

"I'm cautious to say that we could have finished first. I have to admit that the Americans did really well but we lost important points because of our mistakes."

"In Romania the number of gymnasts is remarkably small so the results are a natural cause. In Dallas alone there are 65 gymnastic clubs and in Romania there are less than 10, so the American selection is based on other human resources."
"I'm sorry that there were some childish mistakes but that's the result of lack of experience. I can't say that I'm completely satisfied about any of them but it's a good start on the road to Athens."

Those were very sporting remarks. I remember in 1996 the Russian coaches and some team members saying the US had only won because they were on their home turf. The then USSR team had remarked in 1991 that Kim Zmeskal had won her All Around Gold because of the home crowd advantage. They seemed loath to admit that maybe, just maybe that the Americans did a better job on those days.

Octavian Belu may have pointed out some disadvantages that his country faces but they have definite advantages as well over the US. It seems that in Romania gymnastics is as big as soccer all the time; not just during the Olympics. I have also heard that they all train together all of the time. Even a multiple champion will constantly be pushed to the fullest. The Romanian gymnastics style is not my favorite but they have a high level of difficulty coupled with consistency that racks up the points. I hope the US team doesn't get complacent jsut because he was doing strategic poor mouthing.

What do y'all think about this new trend in gymnastics of having "specialists" on certain apparatus?....I have my own opinion (of course) but, I'd be interested to hear in what some other people think about it.

U.S. TALENT POOL

Originally posted by Skate Sandee Forget combined medals over 01-03. It's going to come down to health. For example: I don't care if Carly Patterson is the reigning AA silver medalist. If she's dealing with a significant injury next year at Olympic qualifyers, there's too many others that are talented enough (I can't believe we can say that about USA's depth) to automatically consider her a shoo-in.

I really think it's going to come down to who is in the best physical shape, injury-free, and who is consistent through the upcoming season. Not past finishes. Too many of the new girls at Worlds proved they can hang tough with the known veterans. It's going to be an awesome US Nationals and Olympic qualifying event!

If everyone is healty next yr its going to be one hell of a battle at nationals to qualifly to trials, then a even bigger battle to make the oly team and alt positions. Good thing about this quad they seem to be more about the team and push each other very well during compeitions. For example at worlds they supported each other and were presence when one of their teamates were competing. Samething with nationals they all supported and pushed each other. They all seem to get along to.

Originally posted by Verbalgirl77 It's more of a 'talent pool' issue. Obviously if someone is not healthy they shouldn't be on the team, but if everyone *IS* healthy (like 1996) it's going to be quite a competition to see these gifted athletes try to outdo each other.

opps quoted wrong person, this is the one i meant to quote, sorry about that

Originally posted by merfsk8s What do y'all think about this new trend in gymnastics of having "specialists" on certain apparatus?....I have my own opinion (of course) but, I'd be interested to hear in what some other people think about it.

I like it. It's like a combo of the event finals and the individual AA.

In the individual AA, the most well-rounded on all aparatuses are highlighted. In the event finals, the true specialists for each event are highlighted - again as individuals.

The team format now is a mix of your all-arounders that are going to also perform in the individual AA, but also allows a country to showcase their specilists - and have them work together to make the best combination at each apparatus. It also would seem to be better for an athlete if they know ahead of time that they are going to be a specialist so that they spend more time training those events over others they won't be in. More practice on a strong event would hopefully translate into stronger performances in competition.

specialists

I say bring 'em on! The Olympics should be about the best in a given event. In the swimming events, swimmers do not have to swim EVERY distance to be eligible for the Olympics. In our beloved sport of figure skating no one competes in all disciplines at the elite level(would it even be possible?).

Many fine event gymnasts such as Ron Gallimore and Trent Dimas had limited careers because of this. Every Olympic sport allows specialization. They also have events for the All Arounders such as the Decathalon, Heptathalon, the Nordic combined and Alpine Combined.